Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Vinay, I just created a wave at https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+R9B29isxA that we can use to discuss the features and plans to sync up. I've just written what I've done so far, and what I'm currently working on. Cheers, Daniel On 8 July 2010 01:35, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis vinays branch. Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Oh, and I meant to say that your contributions are welcome! On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis vinays branch. Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Hi Vinay, That sounds good. I'll probably start with converting some of the code using JSIO to use overlay types, because that's what I'm using for my current project. Regarding testing, it seems that the tests used in the gwt-google-apis Maps v2 API use the gwt-google-apis AjaxLoader implementation to load the API, but that the underlying AjaxLoader only supports Maps v2. Do you know if there are plans to add v3 support to the AjaxLoader? Thanks, Daniel On 8 July 2010 01:35, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis vinays branch. Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA --
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
There are reports of success loading the v3 API with the AJAX Loader (aka Common Loader). The AjaxLoader Java support is API agnostic. You should be able to provide the same parameters to AjaxLoader.loadApi() as described in the forum post below: http://www.devcomments.com/Loading-v3-with-google-load-at93219.htm From a performance perspective, the common loader will be slower than just including the script tag to load the API. I think that is why it isn't being promoted heavily. That and the lack of need for an API key makes it less compelling to use the AjaxLoader classes. You could write a simple script tag injector for the v3 Maps API that works like the AjaxLoader class does if you wanted the delayed load of the Maps API from GWT code. The simplest thing to do is to just add the script tag in your hosted page, though. On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vinay, That sounds good. I'll probably start with converting some of the code using JSIO to use overlay types, because that's what I'm using for my current project. Regarding testing, it seems that the tests used in the gwt-google-apis Maps v2 API use the gwt-google-apis AjaxLoader implementation to load the API, but that the underlying AjaxLoader only supports Maps v2. Do you know if there are plans to add v3 support to the AjaxLoader? Thanks, Daniel On 8 July 2010 01:35, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis vinays branch. Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Thanks for the suggestions. I like the script tag injector idea. I'm currently using AjaxLoader in to load the v2 API when the user navigates to the page with the map in it. I did try the using AjaxLoader.loadApi() to get the Maps v3 API (using the same params described in the forum post you mentioned), but the map did not load in IE, and there were exceptions in Firefox, so I just used the script tag. Maybe I'll revisit that later. On 8 July 2010 11:29, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: There are reports of success loading the v3 API with the AJAX Loader (aka Common Loader). The AjaxLoader Java support is API agnostic. You should be able to provide the same parameters to AjaxLoader.loadApi() as described in the forum post below: http://www.devcomments.com/Loading-v3-with-google-load-at93219.htm From a performance perspective, the common loader will be slower than just including the script tag to load the API. I think that is why it isn't being promoted heavily. That and the lack of need for an API key makes it less compelling to use the AjaxLoader classes. You could write a simple script tag injector for the v3 Maps API that works like the AjaxLoader class does if you wanted the delayed load of the Maps API from GWT code. The simplest thing to do is to just add the script tag in your hosted page, though. On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vinay, That sounds good. I'll probably start with converting some of the code using JSIO to use overlay types, because that's what I'm using for my current project. Regarding testing, it seems that the tests used in the gwt-google-apis Maps v2 API use the gwt-google-apis AjaxLoader implementation to load the API, but that the underlying AjaxLoader only supports Maps v2. Do you know if there are plans to add v3 support to the AjaxLoader? Thanks, Daniel On 8 July 2010 01:35, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis vinays branch. Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Eric, Vinay. Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with migration and API stability. On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri vin...@google.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- this might take some time. On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a contributor to the project. Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not want existing user to suffer because this merge. Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. We've got a change branch going on http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at
[gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Hi Guys, I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? Thanks for your help, Daniel -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
